Sunday, September 21, 2008
Quickie Film Reviews: Casshern (2004)
Robocop + Hellboy II + Holocaust analogy + Christ metaphor = Utterly mental and probably not much good. 6/10.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
It's a Kind of Magic
I wasn't expecting much of the BBC's new Merlin; it looked a bit cheap and tacky, and somewhat juvenile (and yes, I know this, Robin Hood and Doctor Who are all ostensibly for kids, but the latter two are rarely juvenile in tone). So I was pleasantly surprised by the first episode.
The costumes and setting are disappointingly generic pseudo-medieval fantasy, and I've never been a fan of that approach to Arthur; that said, unlike the Robin Hood story, which has ties to an actual historical period, this is myth and speculation, so I can let it pass, even if I'd prefer a more gritty rain-and-mud approach. What makes it work is the writing, a blend of solid plotting and some witty dialogue, and the characters; Colin Morgan makes for a charming Merlin, confident yet vulnerable in equal measure, and his relationship with the young Arthur, played as a posh prat (do we have an equivalent to the US "Jock"?) by Bradley James, promises to be an interesting inversion of the hero-sidekick dynamic. Anthony Head also entertains with an Uther Pendragon who's equal parts fascist bully and broken idealist.
It's not as gloriously over-the-top as Robin Hood, but Merlin is decent enough filler while we wait for Who to come back, and I'll carry on watching.
The costumes and setting are disappointingly generic pseudo-medieval fantasy, and I've never been a fan of that approach to Arthur; that said, unlike the Robin Hood story, which has ties to an actual historical period, this is myth and speculation, so I can let it pass, even if I'd prefer a more gritty rain-and-mud approach. What makes it work is the writing, a blend of solid plotting and some witty dialogue, and the characters; Colin Morgan makes for a charming Merlin, confident yet vulnerable in equal measure, and his relationship with the young Arthur, played as a posh prat (do we have an equivalent to the US "Jock"?) by Bradley James, promises to be an interesting inversion of the hero-sidekick dynamic. Anthony Head also entertains with an Uther Pendragon who's equal parts fascist bully and broken idealist.
It's not as gloriously over-the-top as Robin Hood, but Merlin is decent enough filler while we wait for Who to come back, and I'll carry on watching.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
All You Need is Love(craft)
Is it just me, or is "Octopus's Garden" a Deep One hymn to Father Cthulhu?
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Tabula Rasa
(I know.)
I've never been particularly satisfied with using the mouse for digital art; it's not particularly intuitive, and it strains the arm and hand in a way that the pencil/pen doesn't, so I've often looked into the idea of using a graphics tablet. However, I've never taken the plunge because, despite being a gamer for decades, I've always been concerned about how the hand/eye coordination thing is going to work; the very concept of "drawing" at the desk but having the results appear somewhere else bothers me slightly. And I don't know anyone local or well enough that has a tablet that I could borrow and try out. Also, the things have been hideously expensive up until very recently. So it's always been a case of a lot of umming and ahing and not much tabletting.
So birthdays are good, because people can buy you what they like, and you don't have to worry about the burden of buyer's remorse, even if the gift is rubbish (it's not) and will spend the rest of its life shunned at the back of a cupboard (it won't). This year, I got a Wacom Bamboo One, and while I haven't done much with it yet, I've had a bit of a play, and I think I can work with it. It is weird, but not in the insurmountable way I thought it would be. It will take a lot of practice before I'm anywhere near competent with it, but it should be good enough for my purposes; at the moment, I mainly use the computer for colouring and lettering, but I could see myself drawing directly on the screen once I'm more confident with the gear.
One question though: how is the pen powered? It's very light, so I don't think there's a battery in there, yet it has to be powered somehow for the buttons to work. Doesn't it? I'm confused, and the minimal documentation isn't very helpful. This is the kind of thing that occupies my thoughts, so do help if you can.
I've never been particularly satisfied with using the mouse for digital art; it's not particularly intuitive, and it strains the arm and hand in a way that the pencil/pen doesn't, so I've often looked into the idea of using a graphics tablet. However, I've never taken the plunge because, despite being a gamer for decades, I've always been concerned about how the hand/eye coordination thing is going to work; the very concept of "drawing" at the desk but having the results appear somewhere else bothers me slightly. And I don't know anyone local or well enough that has a tablet that I could borrow and try out. Also, the things have been hideously expensive up until very recently. So it's always been a case of a lot of umming and ahing and not much tabletting.
So birthdays are good, because people can buy you what they like, and you don't have to worry about the burden of buyer's remorse, even if the gift is rubbish (it's not) and will spend the rest of its life shunned at the back of a cupboard (it won't). This year, I got a Wacom Bamboo One, and while I haven't done much with it yet, I've had a bit of a play, and I think I can work with it. It is weird, but not in the insurmountable way I thought it would be. It will take a lot of practice before I'm anywhere near competent with it, but it should be good enough for my purposes; at the moment, I mainly use the computer for colouring and lettering, but I could see myself drawing directly on the screen once I'm more confident with the gear.
One question though: how is the pen powered? It's very light, so I don't think there's a battery in there, yet it has to be powered somehow for the buttons to work. Doesn't it? I'm confused, and the minimal documentation isn't very helpful. This is the kind of thing that occupies my thoughts, so do help if you can.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Not Dead Yet
Work has been insanely busy of late, what with it being the time when we're enrolling all the new hairdressers and mechanics for the year. It's been a lot of long days, so I've not had much else to be getting on with. Nonetheless, I've got some showing off to do.
There's another "Green Day" (argh) article up here, this time on the Young Avengers, Marvel's best idea in ages (not including nextwave, obviously), and one which has been characteristically squandered. I think I might do Rocket Raccoon next.
And I also did an interview with Andy Winter and Mick Trimble for their short graphic novel Septic Isle, a nifty spy thriller which is out in November.
Also, real online Scrabble isn't anywhere as good as Scrabulous was, despite all the bells and whistles, and that new Google browser is a bit naff.
There's another "Green Day" (argh) article up here, this time on the Young Avengers, Marvel's best idea in ages (not including nextwave, obviously), and one which has been characteristically squandered. I think I might do Rocket Raccoon next.
And I also did an interview with Andy Winter and Mick Trimble for their short graphic novel Septic Isle, a nifty spy thriller which is out in November.
Also, real online Scrabble isn't anywhere as good as Scrabulous was, despite all the bells and whistles, and that new Google browser is a bit naff.
Monday, July 28, 2008
The Dark Knight
I would have liked for this review to have gone up at Comics Bulletin, but due to the vagaries of international release dates, I missed the Slugfest by a week. Still, what are blogs for?
(I don't give scores for things here, but over at CB I do, and this would get four bullets out of five.)
I didn't much like Batman Begins. The cinematography and editing were ill-judged, relying on far too much in the way of MTV-style fast-paced cutting and never letting the audience get a good look at what was going on. What plot there was was choppy and confused, veering listlessly from storyline to storyline, with a feeble attempt to tie everything up into a cohesive but nonsensical whole by the end. Katie Holmes had barely anything to do, which is something for which I suppose we should be grateful, because she was awful, and Christian Bale was dull as ditchwater, sleepwalking his way to a paycheque as Bruce Wayne, and growling like a disgruntled terrier as Batman. Worst of all, the film overreached for po-faced seriousness, thinking somehow that this meant it was more intelligent and highbrow than its predecessors, when there was in fact nothing to it below the grime and darkness. All that said, the film looked quite good (except for the lumpy Batsuit), when we were actually allowed to look at anything for more than a picosecond, and both Gary Oldman and Michael Caine were excellent in their rather undeveloped roles.
So yeah, I wasn't exactly leaping with excitement over the sequel. Indeed, I was much more excited about Hellboy II, which is due out in Britain sometime in 2017, I believe.
So I was pleased to discover that The Dark Knight is a vast improvement over the first film, particularly in terms of writing and editing. This time, we actually get to see Batman now and then, and yet the film-makers retain that slight sense of him being an unnatural, otherworldly presence by occasionally showing him from the perspective of the common person, so we'll be sitting in a car with a family when a black shape whizzes by (the Batbike), or we'll follow a boy's line of sight up into a darkened corner to see a pair of eyes looking back, and the vague shape of something huge and dark perched up there. While the idea of Batman as an elusive phantom is hugely important to the mood of this revamp, it's also good to actually see him once in a while; after all, that's what we've paid our money for. All that said, some problems remain; while the action scenes thankfully now make sense, the editing elsewhere in the film is a bit choppy, with scenes switching abruptly for no particular reason.
Christopher Nolan wrote the previous film by himself, but is joined by his brother this time around, and the improvement in the writing is astounding. The Dark Knight is actually about something; competing concepts of order, chaos and justice, as embodied by Batman, the Joker and Harvey Dent respectively. The clash between these philosophies, and the way they change and develop as a result of that clash, is what drives the plot. And there is a plot this time around, which is a blessed relief after the seemingly random nonsense of the first film. On the other hand, the dialogue is a bit choppy at times, with characters occasionally breaking into speeches about their feelings and motivations, instead of conveying them through their actions.
Christian Bale's performance also shows marked improvement. Bale seems to have less to do in this film, but does seem more comfortable in the role. His Bruce Wayne is much improved, although his Batman retains that ridiculous growl. Furthermore, I suspect that the film-makers have told him to emphasise his mouth movements when he speaks, to make up for the rigidity of the cowl, but he's gone a bit over the top, and most of the film consists of him looking like he's chewing on tobacco while having some kind of facial spasm.
Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent is a tad disappointing, as he's potentially the strongest character in the film, but instead is not given enough to do. He hovers around as a sort of contrast to Batman, and to a lesser extent, the Joker, until his accident, when he just runs around shouting a lot. In this film, Harvey is the negative space that defines Batman's role, and while that works, it does short change the character somewhat. Meanwhile, Maggie Gyllenhaal is a huge improvement on the pudding-faced Katie Holmes, since she can at least act, but the character remains underwritten and largely pointless.
Of course, the performance everyone will be talking about is Heath Ledger's Joker, and while it is definitely a strong role, I think that's more down to the writing than Ledger. As mentioned above, the writers have given the Joker a philosophy and meaning, and to me it's that philosophy that drives the character, rather than the actor; while Ledger was a good actor (although I'm not sure he was quite as good as all the hysterical tributes following his death suggested), any quality actor could have done a portrayal of similar strength given the material. For me, it is Gary Oldman's Gordon who steals the film with a very human and natural portrayal of a simple man trying to do his best in a world gone mad. Oldman is quiet, thoughtful and real in the role, a humble hero, but a hero nonetheless. Towards the end of the film, when Gordon speaks of Harvey Dent as being the pure white knight, the "best of us", he seems to be speaking about himself, but is too modest and down-to-earth to perhaps even realise it. It is Ledger who will inevitably receive all the plaudits, but it's Oldman who deserves them.
The film also drops some interesting hints and potential continuity seeds. Early on, we see a nascent Bat Army, reminding us of Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns, there's an oblique reference to the new armour being cat proof, and the weasely ex-employee of Wayne Enterprises who discovers Batman's true identity has more than a hint of Riddlerishness to him. I'm probably reading too much into that last one, but I suspect we will see him again in some capacity, if not a costume, and I'd be very surprised if we don't see Catwoman in the next film.
All in all, Tim Burton's 1989 blockbuster remains the better film, I think, and the 1966 movie is more ingenious, but The Dark Knight is nonetheless a good solid film, and it has convinced me that this update of the franchise is worth doing. I eagerly anticipate the inevitable third instalment.
(I don't give scores for things here, but over at CB I do, and this would get four bullets out of five.)
I didn't much like Batman Begins. The cinematography and editing were ill-judged, relying on far too much in the way of MTV-style fast-paced cutting and never letting the audience get a good look at what was going on. What plot there was was choppy and confused, veering listlessly from storyline to storyline, with a feeble attempt to tie everything up into a cohesive but nonsensical whole by the end. Katie Holmes had barely anything to do, which is something for which I suppose we should be grateful, because she was awful, and Christian Bale was dull as ditchwater, sleepwalking his way to a paycheque as Bruce Wayne, and growling like a disgruntled terrier as Batman. Worst of all, the film overreached for po-faced seriousness, thinking somehow that this meant it was more intelligent and highbrow than its predecessors, when there was in fact nothing to it below the grime and darkness. All that said, the film looked quite good (except for the lumpy Batsuit), when we were actually allowed to look at anything for more than a picosecond, and both Gary Oldman and Michael Caine were excellent in their rather undeveloped roles.
So yeah, I wasn't exactly leaping with excitement over the sequel. Indeed, I was much more excited about Hellboy II, which is due out in Britain sometime in 2017, I believe.
So I was pleased to discover that The Dark Knight is a vast improvement over the first film, particularly in terms of writing and editing. This time, we actually get to see Batman now and then, and yet the film-makers retain that slight sense of him being an unnatural, otherworldly presence by occasionally showing him from the perspective of the common person, so we'll be sitting in a car with a family when a black shape whizzes by (the Batbike), or we'll follow a boy's line of sight up into a darkened corner to see a pair of eyes looking back, and the vague shape of something huge and dark perched up there. While the idea of Batman as an elusive phantom is hugely important to the mood of this revamp, it's also good to actually see him once in a while; after all, that's what we've paid our money for. All that said, some problems remain; while the action scenes thankfully now make sense, the editing elsewhere in the film is a bit choppy, with scenes switching abruptly for no particular reason.
Christopher Nolan wrote the previous film by himself, but is joined by his brother this time around, and the improvement in the writing is astounding. The Dark Knight is actually about something; competing concepts of order, chaos and justice, as embodied by Batman, the Joker and Harvey Dent respectively. The clash between these philosophies, and the way they change and develop as a result of that clash, is what drives the plot. And there is a plot this time around, which is a blessed relief after the seemingly random nonsense of the first film. On the other hand, the dialogue is a bit choppy at times, with characters occasionally breaking into speeches about their feelings and motivations, instead of conveying them through their actions.
Christian Bale's performance also shows marked improvement. Bale seems to have less to do in this film, but does seem more comfortable in the role. His Bruce Wayne is much improved, although his Batman retains that ridiculous growl. Furthermore, I suspect that the film-makers have told him to emphasise his mouth movements when he speaks, to make up for the rigidity of the cowl, but he's gone a bit over the top, and most of the film consists of him looking like he's chewing on tobacco while having some kind of facial spasm.
Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent is a tad disappointing, as he's potentially the strongest character in the film, but instead is not given enough to do. He hovers around as a sort of contrast to Batman, and to a lesser extent, the Joker, until his accident, when he just runs around shouting a lot. In this film, Harvey is the negative space that defines Batman's role, and while that works, it does short change the character somewhat. Meanwhile, Maggie Gyllenhaal is a huge improvement on the pudding-faced Katie Holmes, since she can at least act, but the character remains underwritten and largely pointless.
Of course, the performance everyone will be talking about is Heath Ledger's Joker, and while it is definitely a strong role, I think that's more down to the writing than Ledger. As mentioned above, the writers have given the Joker a philosophy and meaning, and to me it's that philosophy that drives the character, rather than the actor; while Ledger was a good actor (although I'm not sure he was quite as good as all the hysterical tributes following his death suggested), any quality actor could have done a portrayal of similar strength given the material. For me, it is Gary Oldman's Gordon who steals the film with a very human and natural portrayal of a simple man trying to do his best in a world gone mad. Oldman is quiet, thoughtful and real in the role, a humble hero, but a hero nonetheless. Towards the end of the film, when Gordon speaks of Harvey Dent as being the pure white knight, the "best of us", he seems to be speaking about himself, but is too modest and down-to-earth to perhaps even realise it. It is Ledger who will inevitably receive all the plaudits, but it's Oldman who deserves them.
The film also drops some interesting hints and potential continuity seeds. Early on, we see a nascent Bat Army, reminding us of Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns, there's an oblique reference to the new armour being cat proof, and the weasely ex-employee of Wayne Enterprises who discovers Batman's true identity has more than a hint of Riddlerishness to him. I'm probably reading too much into that last one, but I suspect we will see him again in some capacity, if not a costume, and I'd be very surprised if we don't see Catwoman in the next film.
All in all, Tim Burton's 1989 blockbuster remains the better film, I think, and the 1966 movie is more ingenious, but The Dark Knight is nonetheless a good solid film, and it has convinced me that this update of the franchise is worth doing. I eagerly anticipate the inevitable third instalment.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Monkey Magic!
The Beijing Olympics. Bit of a dodgy subject, and I'm not sure I approve of our athletes going out there to compete; after all, we boycotted South Africa's sporting events and teams for decades. Still, politics aside, at least one good thing has come of the event already:
Brilliant.
Brilliant.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Watch Out!
Right, so is everyone excited about the Watchmen trailer because it's any good? Or has the fact that it's, you know, Watchmen, distracted them from the dodgy lighting and pedestrian cinematography on show?
Saturday, July 19, 2008
My Life in Movies
Over here, Rol lists the best film from each year of his life, and gets some of them wrong. Here's my list, which probably tells you an awful lot about my tastes and personality. Apparently, I'm really quite fond of horror and scifi and am easily bored by "proper" films. Who knew?
1978
Okay, technically I wasn't born until 1979, but Halloween is my favourite film ever, so it makes the cut. Ha.
1979
The Warriors because it's the best video game adaptation ever made, even though it predates the beat-em-up genre by years and its own adaptation by about fifteen.
1980
It really is a toss-up between The Blues Brothers and Flash Gordon, but Jake and Ellwood just pip the magnificent comic strip glamgasm. Ask me again in a month, and I'll have gone the other way, most likely.
1981
A really tricky year, this one. 1981 gave us An American Werewolf in London, Clash of the Titans, Escape from New York, Excalibur, Mad Max 2, Superman II and Time Bandits, all favourites of mine. But 1981 also gave us Raiders of the Lost Ark, and that'll do the job nicely.
1982
Conan the Barbarian. I know I probably shouldn't, but I adore this film.
1983
It has to be Return of the Jedi. An unpopular choice, most likely, but it's not a great year for me, and unlike 99% of Star Wars fans, I've never been bothered by the Ewoks. 1983 and 1997 flavours only are acceptable.
1984
A much better year, but as such much more difficult to pick just one film. Ghostbusters, Gremlins, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (possibly my favourite of the series), The Karate Kid, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, Night of the Comet, and The Terminator all came out this year. I think we'll go with Peter Venkman and the gang, with Nausicaä coming a very close second, and Indy trailing by not very much at all in third.
1985
There's not much of a contest here. It's Ewoks: The Battle for Endor all the way.
No, it's Back to the Future. Obviously.
1986
How can I choose between Aliens, Big Trouble in Little China, The Fly, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Highlander, Labyrinth, Little Shop of Horrors, Stand By Me or Transformers? It's between Wil Wheaton and his pals, Optimus Prime's noble demise and Matthew Broderick breaking the Fourth Wall, but Ferris Bueller, you're my hero.
1987
Bad Taste and Evil Dead II come out this year, and I'm torn. In half. By a zombie. We also get Full Metal Jacket, The Lost Boys, Predator, The Princess Bride, Raising Arizona and Robocop, but I think that Bruce Campbell and his chainsaw just edge out Nicolas Cage and the Lone Biker of the Apocalypse. Just.
1988
We got Beetlejuice, and we got The Gump's last decent film in Big (which is not to say that it's a great film, or even a favourite of mine, but I feel it's worth mentioning). We also got buzzing silver balls of death in the excellent Phantasm II, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, which has not aged a day. In the end though, it's a toss-up between my favourite Christmas film ever (Die Hard) and the best film about childhood ever made (My Neighbour Totoro). I think I have to give it to Totoro, even if the current DVD release has been contaminated by The Insipid Fanning Creature.
1989
"Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?"
1990
Total Recall came out this year, and that's one of those films that I've never considered owning, but if I come across it while channel-hopping I will always, without fail, sit and watch it to the end. My pick of the year is Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, however, and that's about as highbrow as this list will get.
1991
Does anyone remember Meet the Applegates? Great film. Anyway, James Cameron made his last decent film this year, and there are far worse ways to end one's career than with Terminator 2: Judgment Day.
1992
As much as I like and admire A Few Good Men, Braindead runs away with the prize. Then slips a bit in all the blood.
1993
Any year that sees the release of Super Mario Brothers and Beethoven's 2nd is a good year for movies (sarcasm), but I have to pick The Legend of Fong Sai Yuk, which is the film that made me fall in love with martial arts cinema, and remains Jet Li's finest two-and-a-bit hours.
1994
Well, it has to be The Shawshank Redemption, doesn't it? Like everyone else, I came to it quite late, but it's just a brilliant, brilliant film about friendship and I will never tire of it.
1995
Wow. The first year where I've found it difficult to pick because nothing has really jumped out at me. Mallrats, I suppose.
1996
While I dearly love From Dusk Till Dawn, Fargo wins it.
1997
Alien 4 is eleven years old. Crikey. To my endless shame, I still haven't seen LA Confidential, despite borrowing it at least twice in order to do so. The Fifth Element is a definite contender, but the runaway winner is the absolutely perfect Princess Mononoke, one of the best movies ever made, animated or not.
1998
What a crappy year, with Armageddon/Deep Impact, Saving Private Ryan and Godzilla all festering like sores, an ill-advised film version of The Avengers and an even-more-ill-advised Blues Brothers sequel. On the other hand, there was American History X, The Big Lebowski, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and Ringu. You know, I didn't like Lebowski at first, but I warm to it a little more each time I see it, and it may well become a favourite one day. But I think I'll have to go with Fear and Loathing.
1999
Ah, the year that saw M Night Shyamalan unleashed upon an unsuspecting public. Lots of good films from this year, and lots of interesting and unconventional films coming out of Hollywood too, although that didn't last. I mean, we got Fight Club, The Straight Story, Being John Malkovich and American Beauty in one year. We also got Inspector Gadget, The Virgin Suicides, and The Phantom Menace, but every silver lining has a cloud.
I'm told that I'm not going to get the full benefit of The Matrix, having never seen it in a cinema, but it's a moot point because as the years have gone by, Sleepy Hollow has supplanted it as my favourite from '99.
2000
O Brother, Where Art Thou? I used to think that this tied with Raising Arizona as my favourite Coens film, but since that didn't make the list, I suppose I've made a decision. Looks great, sounds great. Great great great. Unbreakable, Shyamalanadingdong's only good film, comes in a close second.
2001
The year I paid 20p to see Pearl Harbo(u)r. I still feel cheated. Spirited Away, Amélie and The Devil's Backbone are favourites, but The Fellowship of the Ring has to be my pick. I don't think the trilogy as a whole is a successful as it could have been, but the first instalment is spot on.
2002
Lots of good films (and also Attack of the Clones), but it has to be Spider-Man. It's not perfect, and Blade II is probably the better film, but Blade II didn't overwhelm me with joy from the first moment.
2003
The sequels did absolutely nothing for me, but I could watch Pirates of the Caribbean over and over again and not get bored of it. However, Orlando Bloom isn't in Kill Bill, and Uma Thurman and Lucy Liu are, so we have a clear winner.
2004
Spider-Man 2 finally supplanted the 1989 Batman as the best superhero film ever. They couldn't top this, and indeed didn't. Honourable mentions go to Hellboy and Kung Fu Hustle, but it was always a one-horse race.
2005
Ah the year in which everyone got really excited about a bunch of really very mediocre films. I'll pick Sin City for the lack of anything better.
2006
Oh dear, not much to choose from again. The Nightmare Before Christmas was re-released though, so I'll go with that.
2007
Stardust was very, very good, but The Bourne Ultimatum was just a touch better, even if it didn't have Rupert Everett in it. Bear in mind that I haven't seen No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood or that Jesse James thing yet, so things may change.
2008
Iron Man is my favourite film so far this year, but I'm expecting Hellboy II to topple it. I am not expecting much from Lost Boys 2 at all.
1978
Okay, technically I wasn't born until 1979, but Halloween is my favourite film ever, so it makes the cut. Ha.
1979
The Warriors because it's the best video game adaptation ever made, even though it predates the beat-em-up genre by years and its own adaptation by about fifteen.
1980
It really is a toss-up between The Blues Brothers and Flash Gordon, but Jake and Ellwood just pip the magnificent comic strip glamgasm. Ask me again in a month, and I'll have gone the other way, most likely.
1981
A really tricky year, this one. 1981 gave us An American Werewolf in London, Clash of the Titans, Escape from New York, Excalibur, Mad Max 2, Superman II and Time Bandits, all favourites of mine. But 1981 also gave us Raiders of the Lost Ark, and that'll do the job nicely.
1982
Conan the Barbarian. I know I probably shouldn't, but I adore this film.
1983
It has to be Return of the Jedi. An unpopular choice, most likely, but it's not a great year for me, and unlike 99% of Star Wars fans, I've never been bothered by the Ewoks. 1983 and 1997 flavours only are acceptable.
1984
A much better year, but as such much more difficult to pick just one film. Ghostbusters, Gremlins, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (possibly my favourite of the series), The Karate Kid, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, Night of the Comet, and The Terminator all came out this year. I think we'll go with Peter Venkman and the gang, with Nausicaä coming a very close second, and Indy trailing by not very much at all in third.
1985
There's not much of a contest here. It's Ewoks: The Battle for Endor all the way.
No, it's Back to the Future. Obviously.
1986
How can I choose between Aliens, Big Trouble in Little China, The Fly, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Highlander, Labyrinth, Little Shop of Horrors, Stand By Me or Transformers? It's between Wil Wheaton and his pals, Optimus Prime's noble demise and Matthew Broderick breaking the Fourth Wall, but Ferris Bueller, you're my hero.
1987
Bad Taste and Evil Dead II come out this year, and I'm torn. In half. By a zombie. We also get Full Metal Jacket, The Lost Boys, Predator, The Princess Bride, Raising Arizona and Robocop, but I think that Bruce Campbell and his chainsaw just edge out Nicolas Cage and the Lone Biker of the Apocalypse. Just.
1988
We got Beetlejuice, and we got The Gump's last decent film in Big (which is not to say that it's a great film, or even a favourite of mine, but I feel it's worth mentioning). We also got buzzing silver balls of death in the excellent Phantasm II, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, which has not aged a day. In the end though, it's a toss-up between my favourite Christmas film ever (Die Hard) and the best film about childhood ever made (My Neighbour Totoro). I think I have to give it to Totoro, even if the current DVD release has been contaminated by The Insipid Fanning Creature.
1989
"Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?"
1990
Total Recall came out this year, and that's one of those films that I've never considered owning, but if I come across it while channel-hopping I will always, without fail, sit and watch it to the end. My pick of the year is Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, however, and that's about as highbrow as this list will get.
1991
Does anyone remember Meet the Applegates? Great film. Anyway, James Cameron made his last decent film this year, and there are far worse ways to end one's career than with Terminator 2: Judgment Day.
1992
As much as I like and admire A Few Good Men, Braindead runs away with the prize. Then slips a bit in all the blood.
1993
Any year that sees the release of Super Mario Brothers and Beethoven's 2nd is a good year for movies (sarcasm), but I have to pick The Legend of Fong Sai Yuk, which is the film that made me fall in love with martial arts cinema, and remains Jet Li's finest two-and-a-bit hours.
1994
Well, it has to be The Shawshank Redemption, doesn't it? Like everyone else, I came to it quite late, but it's just a brilliant, brilliant film about friendship and I will never tire of it.
1995
Wow. The first year where I've found it difficult to pick because nothing has really jumped out at me. Mallrats, I suppose.
1996
While I dearly love From Dusk Till Dawn, Fargo wins it.
1997
Alien 4 is eleven years old. Crikey. To my endless shame, I still haven't seen LA Confidential, despite borrowing it at least twice in order to do so. The Fifth Element is a definite contender, but the runaway winner is the absolutely perfect Princess Mononoke, one of the best movies ever made, animated or not.
1998
What a crappy year, with Armageddon/Deep Impact, Saving Private Ryan and Godzilla all festering like sores, an ill-advised film version of The Avengers and an even-more-ill-advised Blues Brothers sequel. On the other hand, there was American History X, The Big Lebowski, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and Ringu. You know, I didn't like Lebowski at first, but I warm to it a little more each time I see it, and it may well become a favourite one day. But I think I'll have to go with Fear and Loathing.
1999
Ah, the year that saw M Night Shyamalan unleashed upon an unsuspecting public. Lots of good films from this year, and lots of interesting and unconventional films coming out of Hollywood too, although that didn't last. I mean, we got Fight Club, The Straight Story, Being John Malkovich and American Beauty in one year. We also got Inspector Gadget, The Virgin Suicides, and The Phantom Menace, but every silver lining has a cloud.
I'm told that I'm not going to get the full benefit of The Matrix, having never seen it in a cinema, but it's a moot point because as the years have gone by, Sleepy Hollow has supplanted it as my favourite from '99.
2000
O Brother, Where Art Thou? I used to think that this tied with Raising Arizona as my favourite Coens film, but since that didn't make the list, I suppose I've made a decision. Looks great, sounds great. Great great great. Unbreakable, Shyamalanadingdong's only good film, comes in a close second.
2001
The year I paid 20p to see Pearl Harbo(u)r. I still feel cheated. Spirited Away, Amélie and The Devil's Backbone are favourites, but The Fellowship of the Ring has to be my pick. I don't think the trilogy as a whole is a successful as it could have been, but the first instalment is spot on.
2002
Lots of good films (and also Attack of the Clones), but it has to be Spider-Man. It's not perfect, and Blade II is probably the better film, but Blade II didn't overwhelm me with joy from the first moment.
2003
The sequels did absolutely nothing for me, but I could watch Pirates of the Caribbean over and over again and not get bored of it. However, Orlando Bloom isn't in Kill Bill, and Uma Thurman and Lucy Liu are, so we have a clear winner.
2004
Spider-Man 2 finally supplanted the 1989 Batman as the best superhero film ever. They couldn't top this, and indeed didn't. Honourable mentions go to Hellboy and Kung Fu Hustle, but it was always a one-horse race.
2005
Ah the year in which everyone got really excited about a bunch of really very mediocre films. I'll pick Sin City for the lack of anything better.
2006
Oh dear, not much to choose from again. The Nightmare Before Christmas was re-released though, so I'll go with that.
2007
Stardust was very, very good, but The Bourne Ultimatum was just a touch better, even if it didn't have Rupert Everett in it. Bear in mind that I haven't seen No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood or that Jesse James thing yet, so things may change.
2008
Iron Man is my favourite film so far this year, but I'm expecting Hellboy II to topple it. I am not expecting much from Lost Boys 2 at all.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
New Who Clues (pt nothing)
Obviously, no Who this week, but rumours about the upcoming specials and fifth series are already beginning to circulate. This Christmas sees David Morrissey appearing as "The Doctor" alongside Tennant as The Doctor, a situation which reminded me of the audio story The One Doctor, in which a conman poses as the Time Lord, setting up alien invasions which he then repels... for a tidy fee. The new series hasn't been shy about going back to the audio and written adventures for inspiration, so it's no surprise that the more recent rumours suggest that the Chrimble story will turn out to be an adaptation of The One Doctor.
Much more unexpected is the suggestion that Sophie Aldred will be returning as proto-Rose companion Ace, and that Paul McGann might be making another appearance as the 8th Doctor! I'm not sure about that last one, as I'd imagine that there are some rights issues with bringing back anything from the Fox TV movie, but it would certainly be welcome, as McGann was a good Doctor in a terrible episode, and he deserves another chance. Oh, and Neil Gaiman has apparently been meeting with Series Five writer Stephen Moffat...
Much more unexpected is the suggestion that Sophie Aldred will be returning as proto-Rose companion Ace, and that Paul McGann might be making another appearance as the 8th Doctor! I'm not sure about that last one, as I'd imagine that there are some rights issues with bringing back anything from the Fox TV movie, but it would certainly be welcome, as McGann was a good Doctor in a terrible episode, and he deserves another chance. Oh, and Neil Gaiman has apparently been meeting with Series Five writer Stephen Moffat...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)